News and commentary on recent advances in the quest by the environmental left to destroy the world's economy through the politicization of global warming (climate change) and the suppression of those who dissent from the "consensus"

Thursday, April 9, 2009

Why environmentalists may be to BLAME for recent warming

The Register reports on a study by NASA scientist Dr. Drew Shindell suggesting a strong correlation between the fight against acid rain in the 1970s and the abrupt reversal in northern hemisphere temperature trends.

Dr Drew Shindell of NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies has led a new study which indicates that much of the general upward trend in temperatures since the 1970s - particularly in the Arctic - may have resulted from changes in levels of solid "aerosol" particles in the atmosphere, rather than elevated CO2. Arctic temperatures are of particular concern to those worried about the effects of global warming, as a melting of the ice cap could lead to disastrous rises in sea level - of a sort which might burst the Thames Barrier and flood London, for instance.

Shindell's research indicates that, ironically, much of the rise in polar temperature seen over the last few decades may have resulted from US and European restrictions on sulphur emissions. According to NASA:

Sulfates, which come primarily from the burning of coal and oil, scatter incoming solar radiation and have a net cooling effect on climate. Over the past three decades, the United States and European countries have passed a series of laws that have reduced sulfate emissions by 50 percent. While improving air quality and aiding public health, the result has been less atmospheric cooling from sulfates.

So, the reduction in sulfate pollution meant the elimination of a significant counterbalance to increasing soot pollution.

Am I advocating the wholesale repeal of sulfate emission restrictions? Not really -- in fact, I'm not ready to concede any human influence in the climate cycle (hence the blog name). I do note, though, that those who believe in consequential human influence on climate must acknowledge that attempts to "fix" what is allegedly broken can often have unforeseen effects.

A note about the frequency of blog posts

Real life often takes me away from blogging, so don't assume this site has been abandoned just because it's been a while since I last posted. Whenever opportunity and motivation converge favorably, I'll be here.

Al Gore, call your office

"To assume that [climate change] is a problem is to assume that the state of earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change."

-- NASA Administrator Dr. Michael Griffin, May 30, 2007 interview

To quote H.L. Mencken...

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken...

The urge to save [the planet] is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it.

About the Heretic

I have degrees in computer science and meteorology, which instantly makes my opinions on global climate change more credible than those of Al Gore. Just a thought.

Myfirst postincludes a discussion of my motivations for doing this blog.

Contrary to stereotypes promoted by the AGW alarmists, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a paid shill of the energy industry. However, if you represent the energy industry and you wish to shower money on me in exchange for my advocacy, there is no need for a formal agreement. Just leave bags of cash on my doorstep and I'll be happy.

Contact

Private messages and post suggestions can be sent to the following address:

Carbon Brokers

A note about the Link classifications

I have done my best to classify the links into the stated categories based on my impression about the general thrust of each of these sites. Sites classified as 'Fellow Heretics' will not necessarily agree with me on all issues related to climate change -- they merely contain content that unapologetically diverges from the consensus. Sites classified as 'True Believers' are those that have accepted the essence of the AGW hypothesis -- but some present their views reasonably rather than in the hysterical fashion of the CoGW. The sites listed under 'GW/CC News' can often be allocated to one of the above other categories (mostly to the 'True Believers'), but I have separated them here because of their primary focus on news.